How we rate PeraBet and check our conclusions

What evidence goes into a rating

First, we establish who owns each claim. The operator's name, bonus terms, withdrawal rules and self-limitation tools are PeraBet information. Terms of the editorial site, authorship and affiliate relationships belong to the publisher. This distinction prevents an editorial contact being presented as operator support or the editorial domain as a licensed casino address.

We then distinguish an operator's published term, the result of the author's action and a calculation based on established numbers. Each claim has its own scope. For example, game counts from different sections do not add up to one universal catalogue, and a threshold for one cryptocurrency does not become the minimum deposit for every method.

Ben Haynes checked the mobile website on a Xiaomi Redmi 10C and an iPhone 14 Pro. The protocol covers registration of one account, two separate deposit and withdrawal routes, a support enquiry, opening game sections and a series of page loads. Documents were not requested during the described withdrawals, but the Terms allow KYC in other cases. We use the result of a route only within its established scope.

Which pages receive a score

A score on a 0–10 scale suits a page with a defined subject of comparison: the brand overall, casino, sports, payments, mobile access, bonuses, safety or support quality. Informational pages on complaints, contacts and our site policies do not receive a score. The brand name in a heading alone does not make a page rateable.

Each rated area has its own criteria and weights. The overall PeraBet score uses seven areas. Articles about a particular area explain its more detailed model; the overall score is not a simple average of published cards and does not depend on their publication order.

Weights in the overall brand model

The weights total 100%. Within an area, each criterion receives a score in 0.5-point steps. Evidence first places it in a band: 0–2 means a serious confirmed weakness; 3–4 a weak result; 5–6 a workable result with notable limits; 7–8 a strong result; and 9–10 an exceptional one. We then choose the value within that band according to the extent and consistency of the evidence. Speed is compared with speed, cost with cost, and legal transparency with the availability and consistency of published particulars.

Which models apply to specific sections

The overall rating covers the whole brand. A focused page uses its own criteria: withdrawal time matters to payments, for example, while market depth matters to the sportsbook. In each model below, weights within one section total 100%; they are not added on top of the overall rating's weights.

Casino and games

The casino section rating combines slots 45% , live casino 30% , crash games 15% and lobby, search and navigation usability 10% . Each game family has its own model:

• Slots: catalogue depth 25%; provider diversity 20%; formats and categories 15%; exclusive or branded games 15%; search and browsing 10%; availability and clarity of the catalogue 10%; slot tournaments and special offers 5%.
• Live casino: table game variety 25%; live-game list depth 20%; provider diversity 15%; game shows and formats 15%; lobby search 10%; availability and transparency 15%.
• Crash games: range of titles 25%; game and provider diversity 20%; clarity of rules and mechanics 20%; category search 15%; game availability and accuracy of the listed titles 10%; quality of risk and volatility information 10%.

Sports, promotions, mobile access and payments

• Sports betting: sports and esports 15%; number of events 15%; market depth 15%; live sportsbook 15%; competitiveness of odds 20%; interface and navigation 10%; clarity of geographic availability 10%.
• Bonuses and promotions: stated value 15%; wagering requirement 25%; monetary limit, maximum win or other cap 15%; time limits 10%; participation and geographic restrictions 10%; variety of promotions and loyalty programme 10%; clarity of terms 15%.
• Mobile access: platforms and login methods 15%; installation-source safety, if an app exists, 15%; stability 20%; loading speed 15%; feature parity with the website 15%; navigation 10%; ease of login and account protection 10%.
• Payments: method variety 15%; deposit availability and limits 10%; withdrawal availability and limits 15%; actual processing time 20%; fees 10%; KYC and withdrawal friction 10%; geographic availability 10%; clarity of terms and limits 10%.

Safety, support and registration

• Licensing and safety: licence status and verifiability 35%; operator identity 20%; clarity of official addresses 15%; KYC/AML rules 15%; responsible gambling tools 10%; history of security incidents 5%.
• Support: range of channels 15%; opening hours 10%; actual response time 25%; answer accuracy 20%; help in resolving the issue 20%; clarity of the escalation route 10%.
• Registration: completion of account access 25%; clarity of required details 15%; KYC transparency 20%; account management and closure 15%; recovery and security 15%; consistency between mobile and desktop routes 10%. We apply this model only when the complete process has been sufficiently observed, not on the basis of one form screen.

We choose a relevant benchmark for each criterion. Slot coverage is compared with catalogues at similar casinos, the sportsbook with other sportsbooks, speed with actual transaction times, and a fee with the player's full cost. Legal particulars are assessed for operator clarity and the ability to verify a claimed licence; an interface is assessed by whether the needed action can actually be completed. One strong metric does not replace the other criteria in a section.

How the total is calculated and gaps are handled

In the standard model, the total is the sum of each criterion's score multiplied by its weight. A genuinely inapplicable criterion is excluded. For example, an assessment of native installation does not describe a product without an app. An unknown value is not treated as zero or called a confirmed shortcoming. A confirmed missing feature is different: PeraBet's lack of a native app counts where an app matters to users. Missing disclosure can lower the transparency score, but it does not justify inventing an unknown fee or payout time.

For comparable measures we select a group of operators and use the same comparison parameters. Thus speed is compared with speed and withdrawal terms with withdrawal terms. An unknown fee or transaction time is never replaced with an invented number.

For the overall rating, scores for seven areas are combined using their weights. The page total is rounded to one decimal place. If a rating depends on a country or product availability there, we state that scope and use the relevant terms. A previous result does not automatically carry over when important terms change. An update date appears only after a substantive review.

How the separate mobile protocol differs

The separate comparison of the mobile web route uses six factors: payments 25%, bonuses 20%, catalogue 20%, mobile access 15%, support 10% and clarity of terms 10%. PeraBet scored 7.4, 7.1, 8.8, 7.3, 6.8 and 6.2 respectively. The weighted sum is 7.425 , and the result rounded to two decimal places is 7.43/10 .

This calculation describes the comparative mobile protocol only. It does not replace the seven-category overall brand model or become a rating of a native app: PeraBet has no native Android or iOS app. When comparing operators, we use the same model for each row and explain which result is shown.

How to read a score alongside the facts

A score helps show the balance of strengths and limits, but does not replace the terms of a specific action. Before depositing, consider the method, network, minimum and possible third-party fee; before withdrawing, the turnover requirement, account verification and payment provider's terms. The welcome package specifies 120% on the first deposit, a $500 monetary bonus cap and 125 free spins. Unstated wagering rules cannot be inferred from another promotion.

Affiliate commission is excluded from the rating formula. If an affiliate link appears beside a call to action, the editorial team labels the relationship separately. Account and payout questions belong with the operator; questions about published material belong with the editorial team. The main PeraBet review shows the total and the reasons behind it; safety page examines legal particulars and account controls in more detail.